On Wed, Aug 15, 2001 at 04:41:37PM +0800, Selena Sol wrote:
>
> > Perl talks XML if you want it to. Perl talks SOAP if you want it to.
> > Perl talks to any database you want it to. Perl talks all network
> > protocols.
>
> I don't buy this. I think this is the definition of glue in 1985. I think
> Perl needs to look at how others have taken the idea of glue to new
> places....
Why? You keep saying Perl should look at others, but you never say
what Perl would by changing to be just like the others.
> >> Selena:
> >> The strength of Perl as a glue language has not gone unoticed by its
> >> linguistic competitors. They are doing a fantastic job developing
> >> infrastructures to pull the rug out from under Perl.
>
> > Abigail:
> > Yeah, but Perl *is* an infrastructure. One that can fit anywhere, and
> > that can be tailor made without too much of a problem. That's the power
> > of Perl.
> >
> > Just because there's the network of interstates doesn't mean 4x4s are
> > no longer needed.
>
> I honestly don't get this. Can you expand?
"interstates" == infrastructure. "4x4s" == big rugged cars that don't
need infrastructure and can go where others cannot, even if they aren't
the fastest/most efficient on an interstate.
>
> >> Selena wrote:
> >> I don't think that Perl has to give up its soul, culture or personality
> to
> >> enter new niches where it can thrive. But it will change. But isn't
> that
> >> natural? Isn't that good?
>
> > Abigail replied:
> > Not when it's change for the sake of change.
>
> I don't think I am advocating change for change sake. Have I come across
> that way?
Yes. The only argument why Perl should change I hear is "because others
are different". I haven't heard one solid argument what Perl would
gain by changing.
Sorry, but I my book that's just a change for the sake of a change.
Abigail
